spam business for good. "It was a cat-and-mouse game," recalls Boe. "I told him, 'We need to discuss this. Can I fax you some papers?' But he would not give us a fax number." AOL could not supply contact information for any of these defendants, so the stories could not be corroborated.
In another case, Boe says a spammer who phoned in to negotiate turned out to be a police officer calling from his department. The cop begged to end the suit, on any terms named by AOL, and a settlement was reached.
Another spam suit resulted in a literal swamp drama. After AOL handed legal papers to Gulf Coast Marketing of Baton Rouge, La., the two brothers who formed the company went berserk, says Boe. One announced to AOL that the other had dumped the company's computers in the swamp so they couldn't be used as evidence. The brother who dumped the computers ultimately cooperated, allegedly after the first brother ran off with his wife.
AOL lawyers will typically send a cease-and-desist letter before filing a suit. Another pair of brothers, Damien and Joe Melle, replied to the letter with a threat: They claimed to have 10 million AOL addresses on a CD-ROM, and they promised to release it for free to the entire world if AOL's attorneys didn't back down.
AOL didn't flinch. "The interesting aspect to that story was the Internet community's reaction to it," says Boe. "There was a lot of anger over how these guys held e-mail addresses hostage. People sent the brothers death threats, and even a bag of burning dog feces." AOL ultimately broke them; the Melle brothers claimed to be destitute, and each brother's case is proceeding separately.
A few states with strong antispam lobbies have enacted legislation against bulk e-mailers, most focusing on unsavory tactics rather than on banning the practice outright. The law in Virginia, home state of AOL, effectively covers the majority of all online accounts because AOL holds the lion's share of Internet access, with the majority of all online accounts in the United States. The state legislature just enacted the Virginia Computer Crime Act, which makes it illegal to falsify headers in e-mail and to distribute software primarily designed to falsify. Penalties are $15 per mail item, or $10,000 per business day - enough to put a spammer out of business. The law went into effect July 1.
Other state laws also tend to limit, rather than outlaw, spam, following the model used to wipe out fax advertising. Nevada and California, for instance, prohibit sending e-mail to people who haven't already expressed consent, or with whom the sender does not have a prior business relationship. California additionally requires that the phrase "ADV" be written in the subject line, and that the e-mail include either an 800 number or an e-mail address to contact for removal from the mailing list. Washington state, like Virginia, bans the use of a forged return address or domain name.
Federal legislation is imminent. The challenge is to be neither too strict nor too lenient. "We don't want to begin down that slippery slope of regulating the Internet to death," says Ken Johnson, a spokesman for Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.), who chairs the House Telecommunications Subcommittee. "History has shown that once the federal government gets its foot in the door, they take over your house. The hackers and the spammers are always one step ahead of us no matter what we do. Plus, there are legitimate First Amendment concerns when it comes to restricting e-mail. And enacting such a law requires striking a balance between those who want no laws on the Internet, and those who want complete bans of illicit practices."
Five bills were introduced in the House and Senate over the past year, but all died, because the legislators couldn't reach agreement before the end of the session. Recently reincarnated in the Senate was the Inbox Privacy Act. It
